“Real pro-choice candidates stand up for the right of every woman to access reproductive healthcare including the right to access contraception, bear healthy children and choose safe legal abortion. [But…] “McGavick is like a slick salesmen; every time I turn around I hear something different from him about where he stands on fundamental freedoms for women.”

Aww gee… it couldn’t be that confusing, could it? I betcha the professionals have him all figured out. Let’s see… just yesterday, Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter definitively wrote about McGavick:

“He is for a woman’s right to choose.”

Well that settles it. Except… according to a November 6, 2005 Timeseditorial:

“Like Dino Rossi, McGavick is Roman Catholic and opposes abortion.”

So… on this very high-profile issue, Balter comes to the opposite conclusion from her paper’s editorial of just a few months ago… an editorial which she herself may have written. (I’m told Balter tends to write the political editorials, but I’ll have to defer to Stefan, who claims to be an expert on unsigned Balter editorials.)

Hmm. Well… if the Times — which fancies itself WA’s paper of record — can’t figure out McGavick’s position on abortion, how the hell are us simple-minded voters expected to do so?

Which of course, is exactly the point. McGavick doesn’t want us to figure out his position on abortion, because either way, it loses him votes. Just look at Balter’s tortured attempt to figure it out for herself:

He is for a woman’s right to choose, but against federal funding for abortion, which unnerves those who bristle at limiting rights for a class of women. He won’t say if Roe v. Wade should be overturned. His limited pro-choice stance must be reconciled with his support for Alito, who is almost certainly another vote to overturn Roe.

So… um… McGavick is for a woman’s right to choose… but against federal funding, forparental notification, and for a ban on “late-term” abortions. And he won’t say whether Roe v. Wade should or should not be overturned. (Though he supported Alito, who almost certainly will vote to overturn it.)

McGavick’s campaign calls his abortion stance “complicated.” Balter describes it as “moderately pro-choice.” I call it “lying,” for this is a candidate who won’t come right out and say that he opposes abortion, but obviously will not lift a finger to stop his Republican colleagues from outlawing it. It’s kinda like George Bush saying he’s opposed to domestic wiretapping.

After all, it doesn’t really matter what a politician says he believes about an issue if he votes the opposite, and anybody who thinks a Sen. McGavick wouldn’t just be another vote for banning abortion is out of their minds.

McGavick is anti-choice and anti-Roe, and with a wink and a nod, you can be sure that the right-wing of his party understands this. Anybody who cares deeply about choice, simply can’t vote for McGavick… and neither can anybody who cares deeply about keeping politicians honest on the issues.

Share:

Related

Comments

Janet : Pope alludes to public funding of abortions in his comment in this thread. The issue of public funding is frequently brought up by anti-abortion groups. One of Bush’s first presidential acts was to deny public funds to pro abortion groups. You called Pope’s comment the “thoughtful person’s” opinion.

So, what do you think of the 1976 Hyde Amendment which denies public funding for abortions? I agree. It’s a non-issue. So why does your side always bring it up?

“Are you claiming that the moral claim providing the basis of the “pro-life” movement can be separated from the imposition of particular religious beliefs?”

I think it’s possible, I don’t think it’s always the case. Is your argument that because most pro-life people object to abortion on a personal religious grounds that the government supporting this position violates the First Amendment?

I do believe that there’s a long ride down the slippery slope from being pro-life to advocating “throwing out the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy”.

re 66: Conservative 1st(whatever): You’re not pro life. You’re pro “control other people by telling them what they can and can’t do with a foetus.” If you were pro-life you’d not be in favor of killing Americans in an oil war that has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

You’re pro-control other people through totalitarian by pretense to moral superiority means even though you don’t follow those rules yourself.

ConFirst @68 Well, you will be happy to know late term abortions are very rarely performed, and if they are, it is almost always due to a threat to the life of the mother or because of an unviable fetus – i.e. having no brain or the like.

You can be personally opposed all you like. You can choose not to have an abortion and council others not to do so. You can go harass women at their doctors offices if it really makes you happy.

But, unless you really are about controling other people’s bodies and their medical decisions, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

“@56 Aren’t you ignoring the fact that women are much more pro life than men? Its the whole child support thing. Comment by Michael— 2/28/06 @ 4:55 am”

Michael, once again you put your ignorance on public display! Nationwide, more than 50% of all women legally entitled to child support receive NO child support, and of the minority who do, few receive the full amount they’re entitled to. Men don’t pay up, period. That’s what all 50 states have large enforcement agencies.

“You’re not pro life. You’re pro “control other people by telling them what they can and can’t do with a foetus.” ”

Actually I’m personally against abortion, but really only have a problem with the legality late term abortions, i.e. “partial birth” abortions, as I think a viable “foetus” should have some protection.

GBS: I am personally against abortions. But I can’t stop an adult female donk from having one, especially if it means she is culling the donk herd!

Too bad certain leftist pinhead moonbat moby trolls like #94 were not culled at conception! Where was RU486 back then. #94, I hope you, windie, jdb, and others have never procreated! Goodness, heavens help us!

“Abortion is the lightning rod issue conservatives always like to play with the uber-conservative, religious zealot base. Who want nothing more than to throw out the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy.”

Just as the threat of overturning Roe v. Wade is a major campaign contribution solicitation for Democrats appealing to the uber-left wing zealots, who want nothing more than to replace democracy with communism. (Note: part of this statement is absurd to make a point.)

“But, that wouldn’t be fun, to try to understand the other side, would it?” posted by Janet S. @ 38 above.

On this we agree, Janet S. Since you have never demonstrated either the ability or the proclivity to understand those whose opinions differ from yours, it must really bother you to try. Assuming, of course, you even get that far.

I have actually read and tried to understand a good deal of right wing thought, and really, it is no fun at all. Alas, your insight might well be true, but we are left to conclude that, as a guide to thought or action, it is totally empty.

My guess is that you’ll hear one thing from McGavick for public consumption on the west side of the Cascades, and something else for the benefit of the conservative base over on the other side and down in Clark County.

As to how his personal religious beliefs play into all this, who knows? I happen to be Catholic, and I believe that abortions are horrible and that women (and their men–it takes a sperm cell or two here, ya know) should do everything they can to avoid ever having to consider getting one. At the same time, I am thoroughly convinced that civil prohibition is not the way to solve the problem. It would seem that there are quite a number of Catholic politicians, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and both of Washington’s Senators who feel the same way and are pretty much up front about it. Our political leadership should be concerning itself more with making sure the babies born into what some of us still like to think of as “this great nation” get a decent chance of nutrition, shelter, health care and education, and less of a chance of getting stuffed into a uniform and blown to pieces so some spoiled rich hypocrites can get richer, more spoiled and continue to stand up and lie to the rest of us.

And, Roger Rabbit might add, if — let’s just imagine IF — Bush needed an excuse to declare martial law, round up his political opponents, suspend elections, and take over the country … sneaking a small nuclear bomb through an east coast port and blowing up an expendable blue collar neighborhood would create all the hysteria and provide all the excuse he would need. Think of it as a joint venture of Bushco LLP and Terrorists, Ltd.

Why would Bush spend political capital and risk splitting his own party to protect a business deal for an Arab country that supplied that laundered money for the 9/11 terrorists and supplied two of the hijackers?

No, I am not impugning a man because of his religious beliefs… I am impugning him for lying about it. It is not “complicated,” as McGavick implies.

I have immense respect for Mario Cuomo, for example, who explains his personal, religious opposition to abortion, but then goes on to explain that his passionate belief in separation of church and state prevents him from imposing his own religious beliefs on others. This is not complicated… it is nuanced. And honest.

McGavick, on the other hand, says he is nominally pro-choice, so as to maintain his political viability, but then makes it clear that he would essentially vote anti-choice on nearly any issue… and the only thing that prevents him advocating a total ban is that he does not believe it would be politically viable. This, in my opinion, is not being pro-choice.

This is not about his religious beliefs… this is about whether he is being honest about his willingness to impose these beliefs on others.

Janet. Where’s the information about public funding of abortions. I’m waiting. I have information about public money in Cal. being used to fund an anti-abortion clinic in Santa Monica — but I can’t find any public money going to fund abortions.

Why do you have a rabid movement against a non-problem. Are you going to get outraged about the public money being spent on anti-abortion. I’m just trying to grasp your sense of fairness and democracy.

Can you help me with some specific information about public funding of abortions?

State’s rights are always important to republicans, except when they’re not. Can you say Terri Schivo? God I love it when righties start spouting off about states’ rights. It’s so easy to prove how completely devoid of intellectual honesty they really are.

Comment by LauraBushKilledAGuy— 2/27/06 @ 9:56 pm

And you lefties are for state right??? hahahahaha If Teri Shiavo is a “State issue” then Roe V Wade is too.

State’s rights are always important to republicans, except when they’re not. Can you say Terri Schivo? God I love it when righties start spouting off about states’ rights. It’s so easy to prove how completely devoid of intellectual honesty they really are.

It’s sad that the left not only lies about the argument, but actively works to call names so that there is greater polarization on the issue.

Richard Pope had an excellent example of a thinking person’s view. It is possible to be Roman Catholic, and not want to outlaw abortion. (It is interesting – the left is okay with a court deciding that abortion is a right, but doesn’t want a court to have the ability to make the opposite decision. Kind of hypocrtical.)

In reality, if Roe v Wade is thrown out, all that happens is that the states decide. Why is the left so scared to have this happen? Are you really so afraid that your views are not in the majority, even though you claim it regularly?

We need more intellectual honesty here. Calling McGavick a liar is political grandstanding, not a reasoned argument. But, that wouldn’t be fun, to try to understand the other side, would it?

I’ll second Richard Pope’s contention that a candidate can be anti-abortion and pro-choice. Harry Reid is a convenient example. McGavick still owes the voters a definitive clarification (which Reid’s track record provides in his case).

That leaves a ticklish question: What does it mean for a pro-choice male to be anti-abortion? Does it mean that if McGavick (or Reid) was pregnant, he wouldn’t have one?

And now it is coming out that the Coast Guard had problems with the deal:

” Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.”

Since the majority of Americans want to keep abortions safe and legal, ANY GOP candidate who’s forced to admit the truth (notice I said FORCED because rethugs NEVER tell the truth unless they absolutely have to) about abortion runs the risk of losing votes. Then again, a return to the good old days of wire hanger abortions wouldn’t be so bad. We all know republican, bible-thumpin, flag waving women are sluts who most often need the abortionists knife!

The only restriction on abortion that I support is the moral one that individuals should impose on themselves! I don’t believe government should be in the business of arbitrating morality. Our goal should be a society in which people choose not to have abortions, and getting them to do that is a job for families, parents, and churches — not for government, public schools, or politicians.

Richard, I could agree with McGavick on abortion until the cows come home, and I still wouldn’t vote for him, because he’d still be a $14 million-a-year CEO who doesn’t give a rap for anyone except the rich and the GOP contributor base.

One Ohio lawmaker has come up with a clever way to protest the introduction of an anti-gay adoption bill — but Log Cabin Republicans might not appreciate it.

In a joking memo sent to his fellow Ohio Senate members Wednesday, outspoken liberal Sen. Robert Hagan seeks sponsors for a bill that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as their foster parents.

The memo suggests that “policymakers in Columbus have ignored this growing threat to our communities for far too long,” and bases its solution on the Republican-backed legislation to ban LGBT parents from adopting or raising foster children.

“Credible research exists that strongly suggests that adopted children raised in Republican households, though significantly wealthier than their Democrat-raised counterparts, are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities, ” Hagan wrote.

“In addition, I have spoken to many adopted children raised in Republican households who have admitted that ‘Well, it’s just plain boring most of the time,’ ” he wrote.

Rep. Ron Hood, the Asheville Republican who initiated the anti-gay adoption bill, had no comment.

The #1 question for voters is would a Senator McGavick represent Washington citizens, or be a reliable rubber stamp for the RNC and Bush White House? We ought to hammer him on that, too. I think this guy is just another made-in-Rove wingclone.

Well Goldy, as I’ve said before, I don’t like abortion, and I think preserving the privacy portion of Roe v. Wade is more important than saving the legal right to abortion. Here is where McGavick is more vulnerable, because if he supports Alito, then he doesn’t support the privacy rights of American citizens, even those already explicitly written into the Bill of Rights. I appreciate the fact that most folks on the left care more about saving abortion than I do, but I think we ought to hammer McGavick on warrantless domestic spying and the GOP’s antipathy toward free speech.

NARAL as usual will be almost entirely useless on this one. Maybe we will get some amusing, but counter-productive events (screw abstinence) or some other half baked measures. The fact that in last Gov election they could not even get Rossi to take a firm position does not fill me with hope this time around. Damn shame really

I agree totally. As a Democrat who supports Roe v. Wade, but who supports some restrictions, I see the flaw in McGavick’s arguement. While Mike and I agree on some restrictions on abortion, McGavick will vote to confirm anti-choice judges (like Alito).

Basically, you are impugning Mike McGavick based on his personal religious beliefs, which happen to hold abortion as morally wrong. There is a major difference between opposing someone’s right to have an abortion versus whether or not somehow should choose to have an abortion.

For example, Goldy supports the right to people to choose whether or not they want to be Nazis and the right to Nazis to hold public demonstrations and marches. Should this make Goldy a Nazi, or a Nazi sympathizer, or pro-Nazi? Obviously not — Goldy is simply pro-choice in the area of freedom of speech.

On other hand hand, Goldy strongly believes that people shouldn’t choose to be Nazis and that Nazis should choose not to enter the public limelight. Goldy is also strongly opposed to Nazism and everything that it stands for. And Goldy presumably doesn’t think that Nazism should be publicly funded either. Does this make Goldy anti-choice on freedom of speech, simply because he doesn’t think people should choose Nazism?

I would say that a person can be both anti-abortion and pro-choice on abortion rights, just like a person can be both anti-Nazi and pro-choice on Nazi free speech rights.

Just as long as NARAL WA stands up to the plate on this one, even if it means playing some hardball and forcing McG to claim a position and not let up on him until he does. They’ll need to in order to make up for what the NARAL HQ did in failing to stand up during the Alito debacle.

Abortion is the lightning rod issue conservatives always like to play with the uber-conservative, religious zealot base. Who want nothing more than to throw out the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy.

McGavick is a conservative through and through. Which simply means, he’s a liar and prone to corruption.

Its the Rossi model. Say anything, do anything to get elected. Sad fact is that too many swing voters are like stupid fish and tend to swallow the hook line sinker without taking the time to see through the murky water, and before they know it, they are in the frying pan.

Roger Rabbit I assume you are also opposed to pregnancy tests. Many a bunny has died in the quest for certainty. And slow the f#@# down you make the rest of us look bad.
And McSafco’s crime is his effort to get votes from the ranks of fem R voters for whome this issue is a cross over issue by being ambiguous as to where he really is comming from.

CF @ 66:
“I think it’s possible, I don’t think it’s always the case. Is your argument that because most pro-life people object to abortion on a personal religious grounds that the government supporting this position violates the First Amendment?

I do believe that there’s a long ride down the slippery slope from being pro-life to advocating “throwing out the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy”.

A) Religion in general, and the Vatican’s public position specifically are routinely invoked in the abortion debate. Mixing religion and government is a bad idea every time. At least according to our Forefathers. Who were not big on the major religions of the world, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen. . . familiar names?

B) Abortion rights are a privacy issue protected by the 4th amendment. To voice objection to abortion is a 1st amendment right, however, the 9th amendment prevents your right to voice your opinion from eroding someone else’s rights privacy.

C) The real issue we should be talking about is reducing the number of abortions, right? The facts around the world show that countries that adopt legal abortions, have aggressive sexual education programs, dispense contraception for free, have the lowest number of abortions.

Take Sweden for example; they threw out their “abstinence only” laws in the 70’s and replaced it the scenario described above. They experienced the sharpest decline in abortions ever recorded and have some of the lowest abortion rates in the world.

Countries like that outlaw abortion have the opposite results. Always. Look at South America. All the countries there have outlawed abortion and have some of the highest rates of abortion – although it’s illegal.

The real issue is that organizations like Planned Parenthood, reduce unwanted pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases through their services.

What medical issues a doctor and a patient discuss are of no concern to you and the government. In short, conservatives are throwing out the Constitution whether the issue is abortion, wiretapping, ceding unprecedented power to the executive branch, or a congress that fails to exercise it’s Constitutional oversight duties.

When the Constitution is gone, what do you replace it with? History has show time and time again that religious theocracies fill those power vacuums.

@79: A thoughtful post, RR. And props to ConservativeFirst for a thoughtful reply. The degree to which a foetus can be termed “human” at a particular stage of development is a tough one, as the reasoning in Roe well demonstrates. It is the “pro-life” position which tries to arbitrarily define the “bright red line”. There are counter-arguments to this which I do not have time to go into (they tend to get biological). However, in essence, the battle is precisely what the pro-choice folks say it is: Who gets to decide? Your person A, person B analogy was good, but it assumes agreement as to what constitutes a “person”.

The bioethics of related disputes are also very difficult, and the advance of science will only make it worse. The abortion war is only the beginning.

The 15% to 20% figure does not necessarily reflect the breakdown of custodial vs. noncustodial fathers; men are less likely to seek support from women, than the other way around. For example, when my wife and I were separated for a couple years, I had custody of our child and never asked her for support. That’s pretty common when the father is the custodial parent, especially if the mother is struggling financially. In fact, there are custodial fathers who not only don’t ask for support but give money to the mother to help her out.

There also are cases — roughly 15% to 20% of total child support cases — where the father is raising the child and the mother is paying or being asked to pay support. The maternal instinct seems to be stronger than the paternal instinct, when it comes to paying support without being coerced to do so, but there are cases where mothers won’t support their children. You see this a lot among women addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. And you frequently see spite in support cases — she may refuse to pay because she’s got it in for the father … you know, screw you, support them yourself. Yeah, you see that in women sometimes, although it’s far more common to see it in noncustodial fathers.

“@70 You miss the point. Most men who have casual sex support abortion because they don’t want to spend the next 18+ years paying for it. Comment by Michael— 2/28/06 @ 10:53 am”

I don’t miss the point, Michael — YOU miss the point. As for this statement, you are wrong, most men who have casual sex are not thinking about either child support or abortion while having casual sex, they’re thinking only about sex! The idea of encouraging the woman to get an abortion may come to them as an afterthought a week or two after she informs him that she’s pregnant, but usually in the context of her asking him to pay for the abortion, and him trying to figure out a way of getting out of paying for the abortion. At that point, the concept of “child support” may not even have occurred to him yet.

You are also overlooking the fact that a large majority of pregnancies do not result from casual sex but rather occur in the context of ongoing relationships. In many of these cases, there’s a reason why they haven’t gotten married, and in many of these cases, they won’t get married even with a child on the way for these same reasons. It’s not unheard of for people to get together for sex who are incompatible or value their independence or don’t see long-term partner potential in their sex partner, or whatever. These are the cases where you are more likely to see the prospective parents get thinking about abortion vs. raising the child and paying child support. The child support question usually comes into play very late in the game, if at all. In most cases, after the fact — the child has been born, the father has left the relationship or the mother doesn’t want him in the household, and faced with the financial realities of child rearing, the mother takes action on the matter of support. However, in the vast majority of child support cases, the support question comes up only when the relationship breaks up — not infrequently, after several children have been born and are several years old.

I think Michael is an example of a not-very-bright person who trips over his own logic, in the same way that one trips on one’s loose shoelaces, because he’s not bright enough to figure out rationalizations for the ideology he wraps around himself.

“@56 Aren’t you ignoring the fact that women are much more pro life than men? Its the whole child support thing. Comment by Michael— 2/28/06 @ 4:55 am”

In addition, it’s not a “fact” that women are more pro-life than men, nor have you cited any evidence to support this assertion. It ought to be obvious that only women get abortions, and women who get abortions are not “pro-life” under your meaning of the term, or they wouldn’t be getting the abortion. If women were so pro-life, they wouldn’t seek abortions, and there wouldn’t be an abortion issue! I can’t help but wonder whether you are (a) as stupid as you often appear to be, or (b) a very clever troll. I opt for the former.

“But, unless you really are about controling other people’s bodies and their medical decisions, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Comment by Nindid— 2/28/06 @ 10:35 am”

Actually, Nindid, the abortion issue is not this simple. The notion that society has a right to keep Person A from killing Person B is universally accepted. This all boils down to whether you believe, or don’t believe, that a fetus is a living person separate and distinct from its host prior to birth. If so, then the fetus is Person B, and the argument that Person A has a right to kill it without societal intervention or regulation is as much a non-starter as medieval laws that permitted parents to kill their children (as a form of discipline, or whatever). Maybe that met some perceived social need in 1000 AD, but no modern society allows that. Now back to the question of whether a fetus is a “cell mass” as pro-choice proponents often claim, or is a “person” as pro-life proponents assert. This is the point where the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade got squishy. Obviously a single fertilized cell is not a sentient human being, but it’s equally obvious that a fetus is a fully developed human being with a brain, its own beating heart, and the ability to move and react to discomfort in the moments prior to birth. As the Court discovered, after drawing upon medical science, philosophy, religion, and every other discipline that might apply, it’s virtually impossible to draw a bright line and say on one side of the line a fetus is not a human person, but instantly becomes one upon crossing that line, let alone trying to figure out where the line is. The transformation of a “cell mess” into a “human being” is a subtle and gradual process. Therefore, as the Court recognized, any line drawing is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, and will be governed by social perceptions and political impetus more than science. So, when a fetus becomes a child boils down to what you believe, and I think it’s both erroneous and counterproductive to denigrate other people’s believes in this regard simply because they differ from yours. I do respect the right of pro-lifers to their views and the sincerity with which they adhere to their personal moral and/or religious beliefs, yet it is still possible for me to disagree with them on what the social and political solution should be.

“I do believe that there’s a long ride down the slippery slope from being pro-life to advocating “throwing out the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy”. Comment by ConservativeFirst— 2/28/06 @ 9:21 am”

I agree these are separate issues, but given the Bush administration’s track record of detaining people without charges, torturing people without trial or due process, and wiretapping U.S. citizens on U.S. soil in violation of their constitutional rights and statutory prohibitions, it is exceedingly difficult for conservatives to argue the Bush administration is not throwing the Constitution out the window. Efforts by conservatives to impose prayer and creationism on public school children also do not hold up under constitutional scrutiny.

Actually, it’s easy to separate moral beliefs from religious beliefs. For example, many agnostics and atheists believe war is morally wrong. My dislike of abortion is based on moral AND religious beliefs, which are not one and the same, and operate somewhat independently on my thinking. It is also possible for people who profess to be profoundly religious to engage in immoral behavior, as many Republicans demonstrate every day — all it requires is a huge dollop of hypocrisy.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.